neil: is it me, or are they showing a hell of a lot more createty finding ways to raise taxes and cut more spending. i am neil cavuto this is getting ridiculous, union members on capitol hill, to keep lawmakers to keep their hands often title ams. man are they very create on the tax front. now tax of a higr gas tax to fund construction projects.

to slash all deducts and exemptions not just for the rich even adjust mortgage formula for example, likely veros in those taxpayers below $250,00 $250,000 threshold, more like a hundred grand crowd now. a health care surtax on the rich to cover a program whose costs are already spiralling. but not much cost on underlying abuses, you see a pattern here. i do not care whether you are on the left or right, the way we're going about this is not fair. no creative solutions to cut spending, a lot of ideas to raise revenues. taking a shine to spending our money, but never saving us money. we'll debate this. with wealth manager.

if you want to look serious you need to put big spending cuts on the table. and we have, i just call him my toke an liberal friend. rick yo unger. you are not buying this. >> i see some, but the problem, you have to be careful not to create a new disaster by trying to solve another one, in 1980, 83% of americans had a defined pension benefit plan at work today that is 15%, less tn 50% over 50, have any retirement benefit, 401(k) or anything. if you are not careful, in how you approach social security going forward. you will have a disaster. neil: put a number on the table. >> it is already a disaster, we might has well forget it.

neil: your party. your point is that republicans of caving on these points agreeing to a deal to avoid the cliff, that will be largely tax hikes. >> washington is so wasteful now, we have to cut across the board, for these unions to come in, flying in on big jet, they have already killed twinkie, they are killing -- >> be fair. >> they didn't kill the twinkie, when is last time you ate one. >> never. >> and your kids. >> but still, the unions, the waste, waste, and all about them it is okay for them to have the entitle aentitlement but everyoe fore bet it. neil: i am saying that we were supposed to have a balanced approach with revenues and

spending cuts. i am seeing a great way of createty to get money from the folks but not safe money, what say you? >> i left him stunned. george, did you hear that? >> i did not realize you were asking me. overwhelming. thank you. you know. propaganda that has gone on for spending, spending, and unions, i don't know what the unions are doing on this issue. they need to get back to representing their members. and reducing government regulations, and other things that can make their companies more profitable overseas, but, to have it talk about spending. you could not tax more than the profits of the country, already, we have spending our government of 25% of our gdp . and we only got revenues of 19%.

so thereeis a gap there when you think about it think about as a business, most businesses in america, if they make a 10% prove that the is okay, 15% prove sit pretty good, 25 to 30% is a really good, we're already, spending 25% of our gdp, if we were a, we would spend all of our profits, already. >> it comes to the zeal to find ways tofied ths to feed the bean address the beast. the argument you hear from many democrats even harry reid today, ying that elections have consequences, and this one americans voted for this. yoyou can. i don't know they voted on more

spending. >> there is some truth to what you say. >> a lot. >> all truth. neil: a little. >> we're in the pregehmannal sis, thi -- we in the pregame analysis, does everyone believe we're getting threw this without any spending cuts, of course, not, here is what is going on happen decemr 31 we take steps to resolve some tax issues, it will have a lot to did with how we approach taxes next year, you will seeesome discussion, on cutting some spending but is that going to be carried over? neil: here is what i'm worried about. my point is -- >> you and i will remember this you were not even born. >> 92 neier was i then. neil: you are right.

>> he was responsible. neil: idea was, i will raise taxes if you guise come back with spending cuts, he raised taxes, they did notome back with spending cuts. are republicans risking going down the same politically disastrous road. >> we have to cut a lot. there is so much waste. neil: you know closing loopholes and that. grover moriest said that is a -- norquist said that is a tax hike, he is so over. neil: why is he over? >> it is not his job to do that. neil: a lot of people rip this guy a new one. >> it makes us -- >> he is just holding politicians account able, if you are closing loopholes.

cut somewhere else, what makes that an out landish view. >> is it sounds strange for us to have a an ar kayicic -- a pl. neil: they go off the reservation and get wacky >> it does not sound right, we need a new approach to this thank y grover for your time but people need individual responsibility. neil: you think it is now that politically correct thing to do to cut -- >> not cave but we do need to cut across the board. neil: do you agree. >> no, not, it is every american's job to holder politician responsibility up there only time we balanced budget in last 17 years is when we had more revenues durings.com

boom, it was not because of the cutting spend, we have not been cutting spending, we have washington run amuck, and i don't care if it is grover or me or you but we have hold washington accountable. we request not spend -- we cannot spend more than we make. neil: where is the scroll for someone on spending to come out say, sign a pledge not to increase spending. >> that is a great idea, we'll call it the cavuto pledge. that sounds great. neil: you don't like being held to a standard. >> i do not mind that. constituents should do that. neil: republicans and democrats alike have made this government grow out of control. if we take away a litmus test to try to rein it in you might as

well take the gates off the asylum and let the -- >> let's send grover to washington. >> we need a better messenger, a new messenger. neil: look at funnion heads running the asylum numb. >> we need massive cuts, we need to cut across the board but we need a new messenger. neil: haveou become a liberal. >> i have not, not at all. neil: you have. >> no, not at all, we new a new messenger. ne: you have a hammer and a sickle on your fore food. >> no, marco rubio, new messenger. neil: i want to thank you all. when we come back, grover, the guy who all the fuss is over. about after talking to me, it became front page news coast-to-coast, he is railing on republicans who are bailing on his no tax hike pledge. democrats to cut spending.

norquist, next. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] they are a glowing example of what it means to be the best. and at this special time of year, they shine even brighter. come to the winter event and get the mercedes-benz you've always wished for, now for an exceptional price. [ santa ] ho, ho, ho, ho! [ male announcer lease a 2013 glk350 for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer.

>> his brand of extremism has been bad for congress and worse for the country. neil: why is ts extreme, to hold politicians account able for spending? anyway, be tt as it may, grover norquist has created a firestorm, now many argue, getting it thrown back at him. a number of republicans, a half dozen stronger abandoning their pledges. how are you doing? >> doing well. neil: does this bug you? i know you pretty well. theay i have seen you per per

trade is a calculating lucifer in pin tripes that does not fit, and republicans who seem to relish divorcing themselves from you. >> obama and reid and nance than plan to spend a great deal of money they did, then they asked to come back and ask republicans to put their fingerprint on a tax increase to validate hire level of -- a higher level of spending, whether they turned and asked the republicans would they please, as they were willing to in '82 and '90, raise taxes so the democrats could spend all of the money, the democrats said no, they said no several times, and they said, no, no, people said why,ome republicans said, i made a commitment to my voters, in writing not to raise taxes,

behind closed-doors you can give somebody goodies but you cannot undo a commitment they make in writing to their voters, they decide since atrshares that pledge with all candidates, republicans and democrats, maybe if they attack me, that would make the pledge go away. the problem is, as handful of congressmen as you point out, know they say, well, i would like ta raise taxes, and they look at me like i'm going to tell them it's okay? don't talk to me. neil: here is my theory, i think there is more to it they are trying to say in middle of caving on a plee, whether people agree or disagree, and some of them, argue, i made this 20 years ago, times have changed, yada yada, they are trying it make you the focus of the attack. and the media loves to attack you. because, i don't know if this a tox news alert date -- a fox news alert data, they don't like you, they seize on that, about that evil grover, and his

comeuppance not about the republicans who are caving, that is what changed you. >> well there are some -- first, the republicans who are thinking of caving, nobody hasoted for a tax increase yet. neil: they will. >>they are having inpure thoughts,. neil: i tell you those inpure thoughts will become inpure action, i can read it. they are so -- they now say, we'll come up with a way to limit deducts that could be raising more money than you would have got reverts back to old clinton rate that is how crazy they are. >> again, some republicans did this back in 1990. the same republicans, who were threatening to cave now tried to cave during theebt ceiling rate. neil: you think there will be a penalty two years from now?

>> one of the challenges those people have have got everyone out front saying, i can be had, i'll raise taxes, they are unrmining boehner, they are undermining mitc mcconwhole is held the republicans -- mcconnell who have held republicansing in, that is not helpful, they are turning to people that voted for them, saying, you know, i promised you something, well, no i'm not, you are not purpos important enough. neil: leme ask you this. they come up with a plan that does not raise tax rates but that limits deductions, and bright off allowances without raising rates there is a lot more tax revenue coming into washington wit but they have not raised rates does that pass the grover test. >> it is not the grover test, you go to american people who

see their taxes increase, they will make the decision, wait, you said you were not raising taxes. you other piece to this. neil: a tax hike? >> yes, i think hard to imagine -- no, we have not look add all parameters. neil: what is what they are come up with, to avoid the rate hike, they will do all, i think by the way they could raise more money, and they might get it but it will mean much higher taxes and reverting back to old clinton era rates, but you would find that a bad thing for them to do. >> well, you have to look at whole package, but as described, if it is going to raise -- i mean. obama wants 1.6 trillion, it is a littl hard to hide that in the small of your back that will hurt like the dickens, and it is all capital eye the way, -- by the way, thisesomes out of savings out of investment capital of u.s., people not pays taxes with consumption they pay

taxes with moneyhey have not consumed this would be a body blow to america let's ability to invest capital instituture, and accumulate savings in the future it would be very bad for the economy, everyone that has their fingerprints, george herbert walker bush thought he of the a hero in 1990, he cut the deal, and he raised taxes, got the promises of spending cuts, the taxes went up, spending did not go down, he tajed econom tanked. neil: everyone makes a big deal about a pledge. and if euif you did this same with a pledge to plain spending rein in spending you you'll be more vilified.

>> only reason they are talking about spending restraint they are trying to buy tax increases, theple pledge does have an affet on spending, not raising taxes is he first condition to getting to spending restraint, if you leave taxes on the table no spending restraint laps. -- happens it is like putting a piranha in the goldfish bowl, all of the goldfish disappear. neil: i am thinking with way that media portrayed you, that maybe you as a child did put piranha in a goldfish bowl. thank you. the issue is not grover, it is money going into washington and money going out, the is a hell of a lot more money that is leaving washington right now than is going into washington. the problem is, that not a guy

names gror. neil: if you want privacy on facebook, zuck said you are out of luck, zuckerberg is to profit selling your personal information to third party vendors it has lawyers lining up.

neil: president obama with another round of meetings with ceo, do not expect much out of it. coming up we are speaking with business owners who have already met with the president, and got no results. who would you like to see meeting at the white house? tell us. we'll get your react at the end of the show.

>> facebook proposed new privacy policy can be coming a new public feud, users and consumer wash dogs, slamming zuckerberg for pushing a plan to sell you're private information to third party vendors, is it right in is it fair? regina, your view is what? >> unfair. this is a site that began by connecting people to other people or friends not advertisers to users, people that started on facebook had no clue this information would be used in any other way. their they cannot be said to have implied to agree with what mark zuckerbergments the wants o do.

neil: you would sue on behalf of users who felt they were violating their privaciy ? >> yes, issue is, not only if you close our account you think it is gone it is not, facebook keep its for up to a year, that information could still get decimated. that could still be all over the web. at that point, you could file a lawsuit be on half of your privacy rights being violated, however not sure what the damages would be. neil: ester, you say not so? >> no. of course, not, you signed a user agreement. nobody should be putting up information they are not expecting the entire world to see, i tell my kids do not put anything out there you do not want he to read, i'll read it and so if you be embarrassed by it. neil: on facebook, i understand what you say, but if i give it to facebook, that they entered into a business agreement with a hoist of third party players, maybe dozens, they all have to the same information, i did not sign up for that with facebook

originally. >> it is -- people need to read their user agreement, i believe facebook has never guaranteed any be -- anybody's actual try vasey. neil: you say they are in their legal right. it -- is it moraley right? >> it is moraley right. >> no. >> well, wait, wt, if you enter, if you are tendering a contract with someone, you are participating there is a free market out there if you don't like facebook privacy policy, go find another social media. social media -- it is social not one person and another it is for to share, when you share you never know where it is going to end. neil: regina, -- >> you are sharing. >> regina -- note real any more. >> no, the federal trade commission sued them, they were

deceiving their clients, they cannot change their privacy policy without consent of the people on there already. people that signed up 10 years ago did not agree to instagram, why should we put up with it because i am on social media and i shared a picture with my family, then i have agreed to be involved with instagram or any other business that facebook wants this is outrageous. >> when you put something out there, you have to assume it is going to say out there, forever. for anyone to see. so, i do not believe the argument -- i just want to -- >> when a comment on one dedicated site guessuyout beyond that dedicated site, that is too beyond. >> it is going to come down to contract, user agreement that particular user entered into at that time. and if there is -- a private company, and mark zucher berg has a right to do what he wants.

neil: fine print never said, to me, your life is an open book for all the books we sign up with. >> fine print keeps changing with facebook that is the problem, that is why they got sued that is why ftc said they were violating people's rights and they could not do that any more, they could not tell, your stuff is private but not really. neil: thank you very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: powerful jackpot tomorrow will b biggest ever, we already know who won, how the government has got the winning ticket. what is it doing with all that green?

neilhalftime, full throttle, you got to b in it to win it. if you are the government, you are app ways in it think about it tomorrow night's powerball,

highest ever for now. david as man said -- a -- said @ does not matter who wins, governmental ways wins. >> absolutory right. this is poor people writing a check to the government most of it goes to the government, the people who can least afford it. but let's deal with overall figures, 2010 last time we could get numbers, about 59 billion-dollars span by american ocelotry tickets. that is a big chunk of change. and immediately, state's peal off about 18 billion from that 30% of that total right off the top to the state. they take that money, and some states designate it for particular things 30% in california goes to the education. that adds up to more than 1% of

total. neill but they have been doing that for years, you would think that every kid would have a gold little bitted laptop. >> you think so, they have a state budget of 53 billion for education, one state that is biggest state. but still, a lot of change. now in addition to that 18 billion. right off the top that is just peeled off the top, have you bottom line, because, the 59 billion-dollar they spend, the people who get money from that have to pay taxes. 35% of goes to fed, you got, state local taxes which could add up to over 10% that is money that just goes into general coffers of the state that is. neil: they can use that for anything. >> anything they want to, to pay the dog catcher. >> all of these years, and all money you talk about 59 million. but, all of these years, all of various government projects, largely education when this started when you and i were

young. >> this is what is was supposed to be for. neil: and our kids are still stupid right, so what happened. >> that is why, they say, does the government deserve more money. neil: why can't the prize winner-take-all of money? >> that is a good question. neil: they would spend it like crazy, -- >> as soon as government getting this much of your dollar, it reels it in how many times you notice they begin a program that is supposed to go for common good, it always ending up for wrong things for bureaucrat, states are taking in a lot more money than they wor they were, e the slow economy. neil: what is driving it? >> the economy has turned a little bit, but they are finding

new ways of getting revenue they have not gotten before, like this, finding extra ways of getting money, not just developing, lotly tickets and power balls but new gambling schemes, and new taxes, when president said, all i want to do is set taxes back to way they were during clinton administration that is true for overall top rate but there are extra nickel and dime taxes that feds and state and local governments, they get a rise in 4%, state taxes rights now, adds to 690 billion. they are will able to cash? neil: amazing. you know, with -- success of tax on their deductions, mortgage interest thing and all they are paying more in taxes now than before. >> yeah, have you won anything

in any of the scratch off games? >> nope, i do not do that, kim there for the ho-hos. neil: i see, always th the empty shells. >> that is you. neil: that is mm. write a check to the government. neil: health care law -- here is the problem, it not going anywhere, but the money for it. it is gone. i'm telling you it's gone, coming up, dunkin' bread ceo on

neil: a lot of companies freaking out. some are cutting back to worker's hours to deal with health care, or cutting healthy

insurance all death, it dunkin' brands getting dunked. the ceo nigel travis. you do not have the same darden experience they and walmart, and some others are curtailing hours or finding ways to get around this big health care you know hit they are taking? what do you do? >> i loved your headline, are we getting dunked? we're focussed on it. we have been working with the obama administration on trying to get the rules amended i think we will in terms -- >> do they show any willingness to do that? >> we've had a lot of success, one part of the affordable health care act that many do not know is about menu labeling. and this is about calorie legislation, here in new york we have legislation bought in by new york city, and other jurisdictions. neil: how do you feel about that

in we need one set of rules, biggest difficulty for franchisees is different jurisdictions spelling out what appropriate for menu labeling. we have it in affordable health care act that will give us one system throughout the country, that will save a lot of regulation. neil: but still require, public calorie count of everything you are okay with that. >> we're fine with that. neil: are there any other people shocked when they go in and say vanillaa cream has 8,000-calories. >> sometimes there is a short-term negative affect, but it lasts, based on our experience a very sport time, we have record numbers here in new york. neil: coffee. >> and coffee and doughnuts. neil: i think that most people know that they are getting really good tasty stuff it is

not a stalk of celery, i wonder, when they have gone to trouble for to everyone publicize the menus with calories, does this really move the need old healthier eating? or any stuff they advocate it will? >> we have no evidence to say it moves it one way or the other. neil: but you are doing it because you have to? >> because we can see the trend going that way. and a lot eass crer to hav easie system, our franchisees can be supported by us rather tha fight the initiative. neil: not like new york that getting overzealous, they follow simple steps. >> right, we have digital menu boards in most of our restaurants. neil: i am surprised that obama let new the white house, you are a -- is your restaurant on the endangered list because it is all bad stuff, live if. >> no, a lot of people love your products. neil: i think that president speaks a few, don't think that

michelle does. >> we think that first lady has a very good initiative but we have a simple philosophy. neil: are trying to be nice, i think they scare. >> you i'm not sure, we've had a lot of up flew owns the white house they consult with us, only thing i would like too cam plain about we would like to be consulted on fiscal cliff. neil: a lot of ceos have been splitting with us on this show, just make a deal, but others say, you know, neil, do not make a stupid dial, do not make it tax hikes, that means, credit rating agencies come and lower your credit rating anyway because have you not addressed spending do you worry about that? >> i do, and i worry about fact we're in a industry, that is both franchise and food industry, fan of choice franchise industry has 9 million jobs, and restaurant industry has 13 million. that is the second biggest afternoon the government. and that is why i think we need

to be consulted, we worry about it nim camp that you need revenue increases, and cost savings, like running a, you need the gas pedal pushed down, and brake peddle. neil: they to not know anything about that? >> i think both parties are talking about balance this time, i'm on the optimist excite. >> one last question, dunkin' donuts, you were fit, do you just run like 80-miles a day. >> 3 hours a week, a work out, but it comes back, all about balance, we have great products, i eat them, i have een them all day today, and that is guest watchy in america. neil: what is highest, caloric treat have you for yourself at dunkin' donuts? >> actually, most of 94 that most of ours are not that high, i can't think of one that is bigger tha@

a hamburgerroduct. neil: a britai gt great answer. >> today weaker have two who were not invited to this this could powwow. but, they are saying that these talks, are just talk. so they are just happy they were not invited, hear

neil: a lot of malbusiness owners had a chance to meet with president today, but who of those owners that we check in with, were not invited. we have them. restaurant owner marco, met as well. with president, back in march 2009. 92 third has seen much progress

since that, patty, you argue, you know, talk is one thing but doing is another. right? >> yeah. it is like this just a photo op, if he really cared what small business thought, only reason he met with that they were whining they had unions and big corporation this is just an opportunity for him to pattous the head, say, i heard -- to pat us on the head, and say i heard you, if he cared he would have a seat at the table and a voice. neil: marco, if you had that opportunity now, what would you ask. president reelected, slightly stronger majority in senate, how would you tell him to play his cards. >> you know, i recommend that president it is great you are meeting with small business owners, but stop and listen to them, every small business owner i talk to does not think it is a good idea to raise taxes on them, what i see is really, two

misperceptions out of white house, one people making $250,000 or more are rich, that is not father from the truth, a lot of small business owner have risked all they have to start the, and in first couple of years they go with little or no pay, just because they are at $2 $250,000 now does not make them rich, if we just tax all those rich peoples, a problems are going away, i believe opposite, the more you begin to raise taxes on those small, owners and entrepreneurs, less incentive they have to create the job, open that additional factory or restaurant, i do not think you will see job creation but job loss by continuing to raise the taxes. neil: a very good point. this is something i want to pick up with you patty, if president were to get his way, and the taxes on wealthier raise in new year, it would raise more

$80 billion next year, enough to keep government going for 10 days, we have to to come up wita better way, what would i it be? >> what are spending cuts they are going to make. neil: i don't hear one, a lot of creative ways to raise money. >> i know, i think that you know, it at some point we have to have some leadership, and we have to stand up and say enough, this is ridiculous, if we raise taxest will provide me with less money to invest in additional employees, equipment or anything else i need to grow my, and why should i, because it deiintentivizes me to grow. neil: have interviewed a number of presidents.

but, you know, every time i go to white house, and i get ready to talk to a president, it is a mind numbing stopper. like wow i'm in the white house. i'm about to talk to the most powerful man in the world, i ink that people freeze at that. now, i get beyond that, and get to the rivetting interview, enough about me, back to you. i think these guys that meet with president, the small and mediumize business leaders, i think they are just so grateful and so wowed, and such in awe to be there, they never get around to bitching, they just down, then they live, and say, what was that about? what do you think? >> well i think they -- i actually -- you know when i met with president, i was not aweed. neil: you were rude. >> i was not rude.

neil: yes. >> i was expressing my opinion. neil: secret service agents were moving in. >> he has to surround hself with people who tell him the tug, rightruth, right now, theyv policy work. s and academics. neil: i hear that and secret service agents were moving in on me,y woul i would say ha is your favorite color, what do you think of that marco, they are grateful they had a few minutes? >> no. there is a little bit of that. awe, and star power when you walk into the white house, but at the end of the day, when i was there i explained to the president, just as clearly as i am now, and as i have a conversation with our employees, and one of things they mentioned that time, was a lot of incertainty going on in the market. and i think have you that same thing now, and what is worse is

that you know, worse than approaching fiscal cliff is not know figure you are going to reach a compromise or make a deal, so it is, often times, the uncertainty are not knowing is worse for the, climate, than going ahead and making a decision, and making a compromise. neil: well put, marco, patty, thank you. >> good seeing you. >> thank you. neil: next, we find out who you, would like to see meet with the president. that fascinatin @8